Beyond the politics, international law and Middle Eastern scholar David Mednicoff from the University of Massachusetts Amherst addresses five key points about the legal status of the attack on Soleimani and the larger conflict.

Dozens of questions have swirled around the events. Beyond the politics, international law and Middle Eastern scholar David Mednicoff from the University of Massachusetts Amherst addresses five key points about the legal status of those attacks and the larger conflict.

1. What role does international law play in this conflict?

The U.S. and other prominent countries established the contemporary system of international law after World War II with three broad goals.

Such acceptance happens in general because countries, like people, have diverse incentives to obey law. There is benefit to being known as reliable in one’s obligations. International law is made most often through treaties that countries negotiate and sign. They follow these treaties because they see them as helpful. Countries get used to and internalize some international law.

Finally, international organizations have large bureaucracies to exert pressure and resolve disputes around international law. The relatively new International Criminal Court can detain, charge and punish leaders who commit certain severe crimes.

Given its power, the U.S. has been willing to flout some international law. But such violations are noticed and have effects.

3. Did the US attack that killed Soleimani violate international law?

It likely did. For the U.S. to kill another government’s official without a major attack or clear threat of attack to its basic autonomy is an illegal act of war.

Doing so on Iraqi territory without apparent Iraqi consent is an additional problem. U.S. activity within Iraq depends on following specific treaties between the two countries, which would not give Washington free rein to attack foreign government officials on Iraqi soil.

In light of the U.S. withdrawal from the nuclear deal, which Iran appeared to be respecting, and its act of war in killing Soleimani, the missile attacks seem a measured – even minimalist – justified response.

5. Why should Americans care if international law was broken?

I suspect a typical response in the U.S. to this is “So what.” Americans, including the president, may ignore when the U.S. acts against international law. Yet, law-breaking reduces other countries’ trust in the U.S. and increases the risk other countries will violate the rules in ways that harm Americans at home and abroad.

US President Donald Trump leaves after speaking about the situation with Iran in the White House in Washington, D.C., Jan. 8, 2020.SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images

Some in the U.S. act as if only naked might matters in foreign policy. Yet, the peril of American policy in Iran and Iraq illustrates something different. Law, and the legitimacy it conveys, also count.

For 16 years we have been exposing Washington lies and untangling media deceit. We work 7 days a week, 16 hours a day for our labor of love, but with rising hosting and associated costs, we need your help! Could you donate $20 for 2020? Please consider a one time or recurring donation of whatever amount you can spare, or consider subscribing for an ad-free experience. It will be greatly appreciated and help us continue our mission of exposing the real FAKE NEWS!

Become a subscriber:

To become an ad-free subscriber please select one of the following two options. Once you click your selected plan a window will open taking you to Admiral, our ad-free partner.

Monthly

Enjoy ad-free browsing while paying as you go.

Just $1 for a month

$4.99/month thereafter

Select Plan

Yearly

Enjoy a full year of ad-free browsing.

$50.00/year

Select Plan

**Does not apply to Disqus, YouTube or any other embedded service ads. View our Ad-Free FAQ for more information.

Make a donation:

If you don't mind the ads and would rather donate, please select one of the options below:

Why Andrew Peek was removed from White House grounds on Jan. 17 remains unknown, but it certainly seems possible that someone might have expressed some concern before he slid into Fiona Hill’s vacated chair.

President Donald Trump reportedly drove "hundreds of thousands" or possibly more Iraqis and Iranians out of their homes to protest the assassination of military commander Qassem Soleimani. The crowd rivaled the size of the U.S. [...]

Following a rocket attack against an Iraqi military base near Kirkuk on Dec. 27, the military presented Trump with multiple options ranging from “moderate” to “far out.” It appears he decided to go with all of the above.

Comments

We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Any comments that are sexist or in any other way deemed hateful by our staff will be deleted and constitute grounds for a ban from posting on the site. Please refer to our Terms of Service (revised 3/17/2016) for information on our posting policy.

Kendzior railed against those who are still in denial and say "no one could have seen this coming" with Trump, just how bad things would get. She's been warning us about the dark days ahead since the night Trump was elected, and [...]

Sheriff Rochelle Bilal has advice for cops who, as Joy Reid describes, react defensively rather than reflectively to the protests over George Floyd and the centuries of police brutality. (Warning: Video begins with graphic police violence.)

The hosts of Fox & Friends tell their audience that the only reason as many people came out to protest in D.C. is because they were no longer afraid of rioters because of the military being brought into the city.